My attitude hasn’t changed in the slightest as a result of this.
“For whatever it’s worth, my respect for you is steadily decreasing with every post of this sort. I find your puerile attempts to change the subject to be worthy of nothing but contempt.”
I’m sorry you feel that way, Auto. But this thread already got ruined by the two of you. by the way, I don’t know what puerile means.
But what I say, I believe to be true. when a man and a woman hate each other, but for some reason, are continually attracted towards each other, if and when they do merge together…its probably a very powerful thing.
and while you’re trying to scold me, how old are you anyway? to go back and forth like this…
security for whom?
Consumariat, I’m not trying to troll you, but this is a perfect example of why I can’t take these arguments seriously. You are literally scared of starving children, you admit you are short on finances, but find it necessary to run off to the pub? If I was strapped for finances myself, and was concerned about my neighbor’s children starving, I would forego the pub and use that money to buy a meal for the kid. How much does a beer cost? How many beers do you and your fellow countrymen consume in a day? How much does it cost to feed a starving child? These might seem like silly questions, but they are not as silly as you thinking kids will starve. Perhaps a change in priorities may be necessary, but that is it.
Redistributing wealth to the poor is the same thing as distributing poverty to those near poverty. Imagine you distributed wealth to everyone equally, what would happen to prices if everyone in the world suddenly had equal amounts of money?
Demand for and hence the prices of desired goods, with no corresponding increase in supply would skyrocket. Coercive charity decreases productive incentives, when it is more production that is needed to relieve charity. Money does not have a static value you cannot relieve poverty by just spreading it around.
Coercive charity puts more money in the hands of governments that create the poverty to begin with assuring that poverty will not be curtailed.
I think this thread is pointless.
Nice catch.
There are people that abuse the welfare system their whole lives by having so many children they recieve benefits and never have to work. Which means there will be a exponentially increasing number of poor people if the benefits aren’t limited. So Consumariat is actually supporting poverty by insisting that the benefits still be provided so they can be abused.
You are literally scared of starving children, you admit you are short on finances, but find it necessary to run off to the pub? If I was strapped for finances myself, and was concerned about my neighbor’s children starving, I would forego the pub and use that money to buy a meal for the kid.
Children are NOT starving in this country, but that is always a possibility if the economy tanks further and we didn’t have a safety net. Of course, if I was seeing hunger everywhere then it would be incumbent upon me to help out instead of spending any of my income on social activities. This is not the case however, we live in a developed country and as such can attain civilised levels of health and security for everyone if we set up systems to do so. I don’t want your anarchy and neither do 99.9% of the country.
You have to understand also that it is not a completely altruistic belief that I have regarding the welfare state. The possibility of being made redundant is real, and it is not a thing that can ever be planned for unless we have a central pool into which we all pay. The social safety net is in my own interest too.
I will say one thing in your favour though. You’ve certainly made me think about what my priorities should be if the worst was to happen and the Tories ever get their way, in fact, even what my priorities should be right now. So thank you for that. It will be a sad day when the enlightened society my grandparent’s fought for is finally dismantled.
Redistributing wealth to the poor is the same thing as distributing poverty to those near poverty. Imagine you distributed wealth to everyone equally, what would happen to prices if everyone in the world suddenly had equal amounts of money?
Demand for and hence the prices of desired goods, with no corresponding increase in supply would skyrocket.
An increased demand from some means a decreased demand from others. I do not see how inflation could result from this.
There are people that abuse the welfare system their whole lives by having so many children they recieve benefits and never have to work. Which means there will be a exponentially increasing number of poor people if the benefits aren’t limited. So Consumariat is actually supporting poverty by insisting that the benefits still be provided so they can be abused.
Malthus was saying that 150 years ago. It never happened, and the birth rate has been constantly falling since then despite the introduction of the welfare state. The fact you speak of other human beings in the same way you would vermin says a lot about you Serpentis.
security for whom?
Me, you, my family, your family. Everyone.
So then Hong Kong should be poorer than Greece with your logic.
Stop dude, nobody here cares.
So then Hong Kong should be poorer than Greece with your logic.
You mean the Hong Kong where government hospitals outnumber private ones almost 5 to 1; where 50% of people live in government subsidised housing with rent-controls; where means-tested child benefit is granted for children up to the age of 15; where free education is provided by the state; where there is disability, sickness, unemployment, and maternity benefits?
Stop dude, nobody here cares.
Clearly plenty of people do, else noone would be replying.
That wasn’t your point and you know it. Your point was to try to ease the tension and distract people from the dispute between Consumariat and myself. Let me know how well that’s worked for you. You see, I’ve decided to increase the tension as a result of what you did. So clearly your efforts have failed.
I couldn’t care less how “immature” you may think I’m acting. Understand?
Now then, Consumariat, let’s try this again.
Great minds think alike.
Oh man this is hilarious. This right here is why I linked you to the Wikipedia article on scarcity. You’re laboring under this absurd delusion that somehow a “safety net” has nothing to do with the economy. Perhaps you don’t even think the government period has anything to do with the economy. Either way, you’re out of your mind.
That may be true - for the moment. But I consider it irrelevant. Do you understand? You can keep squawking about that until the proverbial cows come home and it won’t. Make. One. Difference. To. Me.
Just what the hell do you mean by “be planned for”? And you accuse me of speaking cryptically! Lol…
Go right ahead and point out just where I said that. You really should try to keep things more straight in your head.
I inferred it from your apparent belief that charity could take up the slack if government was to withdraw. If I inferred wrongly then I take it back. Maybe you could clarify your opinion on the issue of charity as a substitute for welfare.
Really now? Are you sure about that?
Yes, I am sure. At a time when the state provided little to no assistance to the poor, poverty was rampant. When the welfare state was introduced, this poverty declined. When in the 80’s Neoliberalism began it’s gradual assault on the welfare state, poverty began to increase again.
So you’re saying the above doesn’t prove anything? Really?
It’s only a proof given certain provisos such as the predicates being true. Of course, you then need to prove the predicates, which brings in the need to prove yet more auxiliary assumptions. As such, all individual claims to truth are interlinked and mutually contingent. Truth values are therefore spread over theories as a whole, not concentrated in individual statements.
See the Duhem-Quine thesis for a better explanation of what I am getting at.
You’re laboring under this absurd delusion that somehow a “safety net” has nothing to do with the economy. Perhaps you don’t even think the government period has anything to do with the economy. Either way, you’re out of your mind.
And you are labouring under the assumption that the economy can exist without the state. The two are inter-woven, and so government policy has the power to do both good and bad to the economy. It all depends on the policy.
That may be true - for the moment. But I consider it irrelevant. Do you understand? You can keep squawking about that until the proverbial cows come home and it won’t. Make. One. Difference. To. Me.
Why do you bother debating on the internet if not to expose yourself to other people’s ideas? Or would you prefer that no-one other than Austrians post here so that you can feel a little more secure in an echo-chamber?
Just what the hell do you mean by “be planned for”? And you accuse me of speaking cryptically! Lol..
What I mean is that the state can put in place procedures and systems that give you a guarantee of survival if you fall on hard times. Hense, there is a plan in the event of unforseen situations such as redundancy and illness.